Put polemics aside and do what’s prudent on climate

It is nonsensical to say ‘the science is settled’.

Geoff Edwards presents an elegant argument countering Ian Plimer’s recent article rebutting the claim that 97 per cent of scientists conclude humans are causing global warming (“Forget Plimer’s polemics, just play the percentages”, 22/1).

But if Edwards is suggesting any policy or action directed at reducing emissions is inviolable, he more than misses the point. The climate debate is about what response is prudent.

Scientists such as Plimer are not deniers. They have understood climate change long before politicians gave it any thought. We now know the huge influence on public awareness affecting most people and governments, first by the false claims of people such as Al Gore and then the false claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe Gore. This claim that Plimer rejects is what led many to say “the science is settled” — the most nonsensical statement of all.

Geoff Ellis, Smithfield, Qld

I thought science operated on the principle of the working hypothesis. If this still holds, let’s admit there is a lot we don’t know about climate. There are those who say it is changing with a catastrophic ending awaiting us. There are those such as Ian Plimer who say climate change is cyclical.

If we assume there is a trend towards change, what could be the cause?

Geoff Edwards and green groups are adamant it is human activity. Their focus is on causes solely derived on Earth. We forget there are possible solar causes. If so, prevention strategies would be irrelevant. Adaptation would be required.

Edwards dismisses Plimer’s statistical argument, yet uses the same approach to support his own case. He suggests even if fewer scientists supported a human cause, we would still take action.

His use of an analogy with insurance coverage for risk of fire damage, even if only a 1 per cent chance, is astonishing for someone from the Royal Society of Queensland.

Roy Gilbert, Perth, WA

Geoff Edwards should consider getting his peers to review his articles before publishing them. He asserts that once a fossil fuel is burned and its carbon, a carrier of energy, is converted to carbon dioxide, the stored energy is lost forever. The carbon in CO2 is converted into glucose via photosynthesis and then converted to starch to be stored as energy by the plant. This is known as the carbon cycle.

His assertion also breaks the second rule of thermodynamics that energy can neither be lost or destroyed. The energy is not wasted, it is merely transformed.

Gerard Rennick, Camp Mountain, Qld

Geoff Edwards skirts around the essence of Ian Pilmer’s argument. No one questions the need for more efficient energy use, the problem is that consensus on anthropogenic cause of climate change is scientifically flawed and influenced by politics and money.

Human activity accounts for 3 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, the rest is from natural sources. I don’t know how anyone can argue that this tiny percentage is responsible for catastrophic weather and climate change.

Ted Stelmasiak, Mt Tamborine, Qld

Geoff Edwards suggested an analogy between fire insurance and spending money on mitigating climate change. Fire is not a theory, it is a fact. There are, however, a good number of people who are unconvinced that mankind can mitigate climate change. It’s a theory. Even the proponents of the theory have had to keep changing their models in the face of newer information.

Edwards made no effort to rebut Plimer point by point. He merely made broad assertions as if the science of climate change was settled, as if our response to it was obvious.

He says we expect our leaders to proceed according to a balance of probabilities. Exactly. If the probability of something is low or uncertain, our leaders would be better advised to spend taxpayers’ money elsewhere.

Richard Topham, Deepdene, Vic

Geoff Edwards appears not to understand the purpose of insurance. We insure to rectify damage from a possible event.

We do not insure, at great cost to households and businesses, to stop a possible event from ever happening as is the case eliminating anthropogenic carbon dioxide to prevent possible climate change.

Gundo Frenda, Darlinghurst, NSW